Search

Background: C-peptide concentration is widely used as a marker of insulin secretion and is especially relevant in evaluating islet graft function following transplantation, because its measurement is not confounded by the presence of exogenous insulin. To address the shortage of human islet donors, the use of porcine islets has been proposed as a possible solution and the stringent pig-to-non-human primate (NHP) model is often the most relevant for pre-clinical evaluation of the potential for diabetes reversal resulting from an islet xenograft. The Millipore radioimmunoassay (RIA) was exclusively used to measure porcine C-peptide (PCP) until 2013 when the assay was discontinued and subsequently a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from Mercodia has been widely adopted. Both assays have been used in pre-clinical trials evaluating the therapeutic potential of xenograft products in reversing diabetes in the pig-to-NHP model, to interpret data in a comparable way it may be useful to perform a harmonization of C-peptide measurements., Methods: We performed a method comparison by determining the PCP concentration in 620 serum samples collected from 20 diabetic cynomolgus macaques transplanted with adult porcine islets. All analyses were performed according to manufacturer instructions., Results: With both assays, we demonstrated an acceptable detection limit, precision, and recovery. Linearity of the ELISA met acceptance criteria at all concentrations tested while linearity of the RIA only met acceptance criteria at five of the eight concentrations tested. The RIA had a detection limit of 0.16 ng/mL, and recovery ranged from 82% to 96% and met linearity acceptance criteria at 0.35 ng/mL and from 0.78 to 2.33 ng/mL. The ELISA had a detection limit of 0.03 ng/mL, and recovery ranged from 81% to 115% and met linearity acceptance criteria from 0.08 to 0.85 ng/mL. Both assays had intra-assay precision <11% and inter-assay precision <14%. PCP concentration measured by ELISA demonstrated a significant correlation with RIA (R 2 =.9721, P<.0001). This strong correlation supports use of the regression equation y=2.029x+0.0897 to transform ELISA data to RIA or inversely y=0.4930x-0.0456 to convert RIA data to ELISA for direct comparison between assays in the concentration range of 0-3.0 ng/mL. Measured C-peptide concentration was lower with the ELISA than with the RIA; individual measurements plotted against the averages of the pair demonstrated that the variability from the mean strongly depended on increasing concentration., Conclusions: Porcine C-peptide can be reliably measured in NHP serum using the Mercodia ELISA, making this assay interchangeable with the Millipore RIA. Inherent differences in antibody affinity and calibration factors may explain the lower ELISA values as compared to the RIA; however without access to a traceable reference standard, it is not possible to determine which assay is most accurate. Regression modeling resulted in a correction factor appropriate for conversion of ELISA data to RIA-equivalent data facilitating comparison of assay results longitudinally and between groups., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Pre-clinical demonstration of porcine islet graft function is necessary to support the clinical transplantation of pig islets. C-peptide concentration is an especially useful marker of insulin secretion, because its measurement is not confounded by the presence of exogenous insulin. To measure porcine C-peptide (PCP), researchers in the field exclusively used the Millipore (previously Linco Research) radioimmunoassay (RIA) until 2011, when Mercodia released an alternative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). (At the end of 2013, the Millipore RIA was withdrawn from the market for commercial reasons.) In our current study, to directly compare these two assays, we performed validation studies on each. We also performed interlaboratory comparisons. Then, to determine the level of agreement between the assays, we analyzed the porcine serum C-peptide concentration measurement results obtained from each assay., Methods: Using pre-established method validation acceptance criteria, we determined and evaluated the detection limit, sensitivity, precision, linearity, and recovery of the two commercially available PCP assays described above (ELISA and RIA). After validation requirements were met, we performed a method comparison by determining C-peptide concentration in 60 serum samples collected from 31 normal, healthy adult Landrace pigs in the fasting state; a subset underwent an intravenous glucose challenge test, to stimulate the typical physiologic range of C-peptide. All analyses were performed according to manufacturer instructions. To compare the assays, we used Deming regression analysis., Results: Both assays met acceptance criteria. The RIA had a sensitivity of 0.1 ng/ml; it was linear to 2.9 ng/ml. The ELISA had a detection limit of 0.03 ng/ml; it was linear to 1.2 ng/ml. Recovery ranged from 89 to 113% with both assays. The coefficient of variability was 8% in interlaboratory comparisons. Deming regression analysis directly comparing both assays revealed significant correlation between them (before log-transformation: R2=0.9803, P<0.0001; after log-transformation: R2=0.9727, P<0.0001). Measured C-peptide concentration was lower with the ELISA than with the RIA; individual measurements plotted against the averages of the pair demonstrated that the variability from the mean strongly depended on increasing concentration. To transform ELISA data, we used the standard regression equation y=2.191x+0.1119 and the log-transformed regression equation y=0.8101x+0.7502. Both the transformed and the log-transformed (exponential) values approximated the measured RIA levels with a high degree of accuracy in the concentration range of 0 to 1.0 ng/ml., Conclusions: Porcine C-peptide concentration can be reliably measured in porcine serum samples with either assay (ELISA or RIA). However, the C-peptide results generated by these two assays are not equivalent. Therefore, assay bias must be considered before directly comparing pre-clinical studies that used either of these assays. We determined that harmonization between the assays is appropriate in a specific concentration range. Outside of that range, we do not know whether a linear correction function can be more broadly applied. The variation between the two assays may be related to calibration or reagent factors. To determine which assay is truly more accurate and to effectively compare interlaboratory results, we will need a traceable reference standard., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)